DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 01/19/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. The Applicant has overcome the Claim Objection of record, and it has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on pages 8-12 regarding newly amended claim 1 language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to new amendments to the claim language, which have been addressed in the rejection below.
In response to Applicants argument on page 13 regarding Fitzpatrick failing to show the lip of the diaphragm is formed as part of a substrate,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants argument is that Fitzpatrick fails to show the lip of the diaphragm is formed as part of a substrate, however, given the Oxford English Dictionary defines Substrate: “1. A thing which underlies or forms the basis of another; a substratum, a foundation.”; the diaphragm comprises of a substrate, that being the entire structure of each diaphragm 360-365 is comprised of a substrate, as each diaphragm is single piece of material, with the lip of the diaphragm included in that substrate, overcoming the Applicants argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 & 11-12 & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzpatrick et al (US 2017/0370357), hereinafter referred to as Fitzpatrick, in view of Ernst (US 1,893,825).
Regarding claim 1, Fitzpatrick (US 2017/0370357) shows a pump comprising:
a housing (326, Fig. 27) comprising a wall (350, Fig. 27) surrounding a recess (¶100, Lines 5-6), the wall defining an aperture (351, Fig. 27) extending radially therethrough (Fig. 27), the housing defining an inlet passage (335, Fig. 32) and an outlet passage (337, Fig. 33); a diaphragm (364, Fig. 27 – there are a plurality 352 of diaphragms 360-365) extending from a lip (Fig. 27 – the aperture 351 comprises of a structure that is a lip) to a distal end region (Fig. 27 – the distal end region is the distal end of each diaphragm), the lip of the diaphragm defining an opening to a pumping chamber (369, Fig. 27/32/33, ¶0116 – the lip of the diaphragm 364 is defined as an opening to a pumping chamber 369), the diaphragm positioned with the lip adjacent to and surrounding the aperture of the wall (Fig. 26/27), the distal end region of the diaphragm positioned within the recess (Fig. 26), wherein the inlet passage and outlet passage are in fluid communication with the opening to the pumping chamber (Figs. 32/33, ¶0117 / 0118); and a cam (342/343 Fig. 26/27) supported for movement along an orbital path that is offset from a central axis (A, Fig. 27/28, see Annotated Figure 1 – Fig. 28 is shown with the cam 342/343 rotated where element Y is positioned at a 12-o’clock orientation with element 51 being fully extended at a 6-o’clock position, with Fig. 30 showing a movement of the rotation where element Y is rotated to about the 10-o’clock position with element 353 being fully extended at the same 10-o”clock position; all of which demonstrates an orbital path that is offset from the central axis A) within the recess (Fig. 27/28), wherein the cam is connected to an offset member (345/347/338, Fig. 27) comprising a first end and a second end (see Annotated Figure 2), wherein the first end is connected to a rotation shaft of a motor (338, Fig. 27, see Annotated Figure 2- element 338 is a motor) and the second end opposite and offset from the first end, is connected to a centre portion of the cam (Fig. 27 – the second end is offset from the first end, as evidenced by the orbital path of movement, with the second end connected to a centre portion of the cam 342/343) and configured to move the cam along the orbital path about a rotational axis of the rotation shaft of the motor (¶0101, Fig. 28/30 – Figs 28 & 30 demonstrate the orbital path the cam moves along, which is about a rotational axis of the rotation shaft of the motor 338), the cam is connected to the distal end region of the diaphragm (Fig. 26, ¶0104, Lines 6-11), wherein, the cam is configured to: move the distal end region radially outwardly from the central axis and towards the wall to compress the pumping chamber and provide flow from the pumping chamber to the outlet passage (Figs. 28-31, ¶0104, Lines 6-11), and move the distal end region radially inwardly towards the central axis and away from the wall to expand the pumping chamber (Figs. 28-31, ¶0104, Lines 6-11) and provide flow from the inlet passage to the pumping chamber (¶0117).
However, Fitzpatrick lacks showing the offset member being formed as a single linkage.
Ernst (US 1,893,825), an actuated motor pump, is in the same field of endeavor as Fitzpatrick which is an actuated motor pump.
Ernst teaches the offset member being formed as a single linkage (see Annotated Figure 3 – as the Applicant claims the offset member 190 to be formed as a single linkage by claiming the offset member has two ends which are both connected to two different components, as does Ernst teach with element J being an offset member formed of a single linkage J).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the offset member of Fitzpatrick to incorporate the teachings of the offset member of Ernst, which would provide a simpler design that uses less parts prone to maintenance as well as reducing overall production costs (Col. 1, Lines 17-26).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
598
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
546
748
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 11, Fitzpatrick shows further comprising a motor (¶0101 / 0104 – the fluid driving system 328 includes elements 338, 345, & 347; wherein element 338 is a motor) with the rotation shaft (Fig. 25/27 – of which the motor includes a motor shaft in the form of element 347, of which can be seen as comprising of at least one motor shaft) extending into the recess (Fig. 25 – the motor shaft can be seen inside the recess), the motor shaft drivingly connected to the cam (¶0104).
Regarding claim 12, Fitzpatrick shows wherein the housing forms a second wall (332, Fig. 27) defining a second recess (Fig. 26 – the second recess can be seen as the recess of structure of the second wall, as can be seen in the side view of Fig. 26), an end region of the motor received within the second recess (Fig. 25/26), and wherein the motor shaft extends through the second wall and into the first recess (Fig. 25/26 – the motor shaft extends through the second wall and into the first recess).
Regarding claim 14, Fitzpatrick shows wherein the wall of the housing defines a second aperture therethrough (Fig. 27/34 – each diaphragm matches to each aperture 351 in the wall 350, and below will be described the redundant construction of a separate diaphragm 363 of the plurality of diaphragms 352), the housing defining a second inlet passage (¶0122, Fig. 34) and a second outlet passage (¶0123, Fig. 34); wherein the pump further comprises a second diaphragm (Fig. 34 – Figure 27 details a plurality of diaphragms, while Figure 34 shows a view of two of the at least two of the five diaphragms as they sit within the housing; as such all previously stated elements have been duplicated, as the Figures show) with a second lip extending to a second distal end region and a second pumping chamber (369, Fig. 27/32/33/34, ¶0116 – the second lip of the diaphragm 363 is defined as an opening to the second pumping chamber 369; wherein the second diaphragm 363 has a second distal end), the second lip positioned adjacent to and surrounding the second aperture of the wall (Fig. 26/27/34) and the second distal end region (Fig. 26/32/34) positioned within the recess (Fig. 26/32/34), wherein the second inlet passage and the second outlet passage are in fluid communication with the second pumping chamber (Fig. 32/33/34); wherein the cam is connected to the second distal end region of the second diaphragm (Fig. 26); and wherein the cam alternately moves the second distal end region radially outwardly from the central axis and towards the wall to compress the second pumping chamber and provide flow from the second pumping chamber to the second outlet passage (Fig. 26 / 28-31, ¶0104, Lines 6-11 – contraction of the second pumping chamber of the second diaphragm), and moves the second distal end region radially inwardly towards the central axis and away from the wall to expand the second pumping chamber (Fig. 26 / 28-31, ¶0104, Lines 6-11 – expansion of the second pumping chamber of the second diaphragm) and provide flow from the second inlet passage to the second pumping chamber (Fig. 32/33, ¶0117).
Regarding claim 15, Fitzpatrick shows wherein the first inlet passage is fluidly independent of the second inlet passage (Fig. 27 / 32-34 – As Figs. 27 and 34 depicts, there are a plurality of inlet passages at least equal to the number of the plurality of diaphragms, meaning, as Figs. 32-33 show each individual inlet passage and outlet passages for the respective diaphragm, are fluidly independent of the other inlet passages of the other diaphragms); and wherein the first outlet passage is fluidly independent of the second outlet passage (Fig. 27 / 32-34 – As Fig. 34 depicts, there are a plurality of outlet passages at least equal to the number of the plurality of diaphragms, meaning, as Figs. 32-33 show each individual inlet passage and outlet passages for the respective diaphragm, are fluidly independent of the other outlet passages of the other diaphragms).
Regarding claim 24, Fitzpatrick shows further comprises a first housing member (332, Fig. 27), a second housing member (334, Fig. 27) and a substrate (Fig. 27 – The Oxford English Dictionary defines Substrate: “1. A thing which underlies or forms the basis of another; a substratum, a foundation.”; the diaphragm comprises of a substrate, that being the entire structure of each diaphragm is comprised of a substrate, as it is all a single piece of material) positioned between the first housing member and the second housing member (Fig. 27), wherein the lip of the diaphragm (364, Fig. 27 – the lip of the diaphragm 364 can be seen as the larger outer edge) is formed as a part of the substrate (Fig. 27- The Oxford English Dictionary defines Substrate: “1. A thing which underlies or forms the basis of another; a substratum, a foundation.”; the diaphragm comprises of a substrate, that being the entire structure of each diaphragm 360-365 is comprised of a substrate, as it is all a single piece of material, with the lip of the diaphragm included in that substrate).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 3-10 are objected to for depending from an objected to claim. The Applicant is invited to discuss the consideration of the allowable subject matter with the Examiner at their convenience.
Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art of record is Fitzpatrick (US 2017/0370357), and while this reference does disclose some details of the first and second housing members, however this reference does not disclose the structure required to meet the bar for the claimed limitations of having the wall and the aperture of the first housing member being positioned between the recess and the second housing member, of which would isolate the flows of air about the distal edge of the device instead of separating them permanently and modify Fitzpatrick out of its best use mode. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fitzpatrick as doing so would employ hindsight reasoning and compromise the mechanical continuity of Fitzpatrick by structurally modifying out of its best use mode.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights